I disagree with Mr. Wilders’ statement that he cannot defend himself properly without the religious experts that he claims that he needs because the trial is not about Islam and whether his statements are true or false. The trial is about whether he is inciting violence and, to quote the Manual for Courts Martial, using “provoking speech.”

Editor’s note: This is a heavily edited version of this comment, which was basically a polemic against Muslims (with lots of text in all capital letters). This blog is not a forum for venting general grievances against Muslims. There are plenty of other places on the web designed for that. Going forward I will only approve comments on this post that address Mr. Furlow’s point at the end of his post, i.e. what the goal of Wilders’s speech is or should be. As he correctly notes, that is what determines whether his is hate speech or speech that should be legally protected. That is the issue up for comment. Thanks for your cooperation.